Girl avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A choose in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a girl o two years of felony probation, fines and group service for voting her dead mom’s ballot in Arizona within the 2020 normal election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve a minimum of 30 days in jail as a result of she lied to investigators and demanded that they hold these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is certainly one of only a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to expenses, despite widespread perception among many supporters of former President Donald Trump that there was widespread voter fraud that led to his loss in Arizona and other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Courtroom Judge Margaret LaBianca earlier than the decide handed down her sentence. McKee mentioned that she was grieving over the loss of her mother and had no intent to impact the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee advised LaBianca. “I don’t wish to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was unsuitable and I’m prepared to just accept the implications handed down by the court docket.”

Each McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, though she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots were mailed to voters.

Assistant Attorney Common Todd Lawson played a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator with his workplace where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The only technique to stop voter fraud is to physically go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I imply, voter fraud goes to be prevalent so long as there’s mail-in voting, for certain. I imply, there’s no manner to ensure a fair election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a good election,” she continued. “I do consider there was a variety of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the past decade, many for similar violations of voting another person’s ballot, and said nobody obtained jail time in these cases. He stated agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would increase constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over an extended period of time, in voluminous cases, 67 cases, nobody on this state for comparable cases, in related context ... no person received jail time,” Henze said. “The court didn’t impose jail time in any respect.”

But Lawson mentioned jail time was important as a result of the kind of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases involved individuals voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, within the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is on the market,” Lawson told the judge. “And primarily what we’re seeing here is somebody who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud as a result of it’s a big downside and I’m just going to slide in beneath the radar. And I’m going to do it because all people else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he said. “And I believe the attitude you hear within the interview is the perspective that differentiates this case from the other instances.”

LaBianca mentioned that while she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she informed the investigator what she wished: going after individuals who dedicated voter fraud.

“And if there have been evidence that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be called for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the document right here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it might be for someone like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, besides your own fraud, such statements are usually not unlawful as far as I do know,” the judge continued.